Archive

My old minivan gets about 21mpg in town, but it’s getting about time to replace it. Since I never drive off-road, and seldom carry more than two passengers, a sensible car would be a good choice. Too bad car buying isn’t usually a rational process.
- -
How about an SUV – a really big one? Yeah! That would show ‘em. All those little cars, like Ford Tauruses or Toyota Avalons – would scatter when they see me coming. I could sit up high and see way down the road, when I’m not talking on my cell phone. And if I ever got in a collision, too bad for the other guy.
- -
Of course, the guy behind me couldn’t see anything around my SUV, either. But he should buy an SUV too if he wants to see what’s up ahead. What a weenie. He deserves to be walled in by real cars driven by real Americans.
- -
I know 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, and some peaceniks say that oil money supports terrorists. But that’s what the Department of Homeland Security is for. Besides, if anyone messes with us, we’ll bomb them until they don’t hate us anymore! If we can find them. Too bad for the innocent people they hide with.
- -
Recently I saw on TV how SUV’s aren’t really safer than weenie-cars, how they roll over, cause broken necks, and kill people in other cars. Then last month, two studies said the same thing. But I’d FEEL safer in an SUV, and how I feel is much more important than road safety or national security. Those anti-SUV people should just get a life. Which they can keep until they run into my SUV – Hah!
- -
Think I should get the onboard navigation system? How about the DVD player? How big are the drink holders? I like big drink holders… POSTSCRIPT: president of my fan club writes a response to this editorial! ¶ 10:13 AM

Like any good bureaucracy, our university has a department of Environmental Health and Safety. In their latest newsletter, there is a notice to all of us scofflaws who would prop open a self-closing door – this is a violation of fire-safety rules! Let’s call this the “no doorstop” rule, which will now be enforced by inspection. “One of the most obvious and extensive violations of the Life Safety Code across campus involves using rubber stops or kick-down devices on doors in order to keep them open,” beginning two paragraphs of explanation…
- -
The newsletter concludes:
“As much as we understand your need to feel accessible, we urge you to look at your application, and make the appropriate adjustments. While some might view it as more of an inconvenience, there is no compromise small enough for the sake of safety.” Written like a true bureaucrat!
- -
On the grammatical level, this is funny because the writer is unintentionally saying “Safety is OK as long as you don’t have to compromise anything for it.”
- -
But beyond that, the writer means (I am sure) to say “No gain in safety is too small to be worth even a great inconvenience.”
- -
Not funny. This is saying that even if the gain in safety is tiny (such as the small chance that the modern, sprinkler-equipped public building will suddenly burst into flames and a self-closing door becomes the only thing that saves a life), then thousands of people must be inconvenienced over a period of many years to achieve it. In fact, it may be more than inconvenience – 2-way traffic combined with closed doors will dependably produce a steady stream of small injuries over the years. And in case of fire, that self-closing door will significantly impede the escape of a handicapped person.
- -
Some inconveniences obviously make a broad stroke toward public safety, like seat belts, and child-proof caps on drain opener. But how much inconvenience must the public absorb for debatable improvements in safety? ¶ 4:34 PM